FDIC CHAIRMAN'S SPEECH AT ABA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS SUMMIT

The following speech given by the FDIC Chairman was excerpted from the FDIC web site:

"Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair to the ABA Government Relations Summit, Washington, DC
March 16, 2011

Good morning. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join you for this year’s ABA Government Relations Summit.

We are, in many ways, at a crossroads in terms of the future of the commercial banking industry -- how it is regulated, and whether it will in fact fulfill its promise as an engine of growth for the U.S. economy. The past few years have taught all of us some painful lessons.

In 2008, our financial markets and institutions came literally to the brink of systemic collapse. Despite a massive infusion of federal support, our economy still experienced its worst recession since the 1930s. Economists tell us that the recession ended almost two years ago, and it’s true that overall business activity has continued to trend higher since then.

But 13.7 million people remain officially unemployed, and millions more are underemployed. Six million Americans have been officially out of work for more than six months. The banking industry is indeed recovering, but that process remains incomplete.

Problem loans are declining, as are loan-loss provisions. But bankers remain concerned about rebuilding their earnings capacity in the wake of the crisis. And many of you are pointing to heightened regulatory oversight as a primary source of concern in the earnings outlook.

We have heard:

that higher capital standards will reduce lending and economic growth,


that restrictions on capital markets activities will push business overseas, and
that the impending Dodd-Frank reforms are both creating unresolved uncertainty for banks and moving along too fast for comfort.
This may be my last opportunity to speak with you before the end of my term in June.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with you what I think are some real challenges facing the banking industry, and how the industry can play a more constructive role in the economic recovery and the reform process. Despite the sometimes heated rhetoric about the direction of regulation, I think bankers, regulators, and the public really do share many of the same goals and concerns for the future.


Short-Term Challenges and the Long-Term Economic Future

First, I would like to propose to you a radical-sounding notion. And it is that increasing the size and profitability of the financial services industry is not – and should not be – the main goal of our national economic policy.

Yes, as we found out in the Fall of 2008, banking is critically important to the ability of our economy to function. And in the wake of the crisis, it looks like bank lending will have to be an even more important ingredient in financing economic activity than it was just a few years ago.

But, in policy terms, the success of the financial sector is not an end in itself, but a means to an end – which is to support the vitality of the real economy and the livelihood of the American people. What really matters to the life of our nation is enabling entrepreneurs to build new businesses that create more well-paying jobs, and enabling families to put a roof over their heads and educate their children.

In our national economic life, your contribution as bankers, and ours as regulators, can only be measured against this yardstick. And let’s be completely honest – in the period that led up to the financial crisis we did not get the job done. FDIC-insured institutions booked record earnings in each of the first six years of the last decade.

But in the recession that followed, the U.S. economy lost over 8-and-a-half million jobs, of which only about 1.2 million have been regained in the recovery. There are almost two million fewer private-sector jobs in this country today than there were in December 1999, eleven years ago. More than nine million residential mortgages have entered foreclosure in the past four years, and the backlog of seriously past due mortgages stands at more than two-and-a-half million.

The lesson for policymakers is that having a profitable banking industry, even for years at a time, is not sufficient on its own to support the long-term credit needs of the U.S. economy. Instead, the industry also needs to be stable, and its earnings must be sustainable over the long term. This, quite simply, is why regulatory changes must be made.
Is the Problem Regulation – or Confidence?

While it is clearly recovering, our economy continues to face some significant challenges.
The balance sheets of households, depository institutions, state and local governments and the federal government all suffered serious damage as a result of the recession. All of these sectors are taking steps to repair that damage, but in some cases it will be a long, painful process.

In some respects we have seen a dramatic improvement in investor confidence and the functioning of financial markets. Credit spreads are down, stock prices are up, and lending standards have eased a little. We’re finding that troubled institutions have recently been better able to raise capital or find an acquirer before failure, and we have also been getting better bids for failed banks that have good retail franchises.

But not every part of our financial system is working the way it is supposed to.

The issuance of private mortgage-backed securities last year was just $60 billion, the same as in 2009 and down almost 95 percent from the peak years of 2005 and 2006. Let’s be clear – the collapse in this market is not the result of actual or anticipated regulatory intervention. Instead, it is the result of a crisis of confidence on the part of investors who lost hundreds of billions of dollars in the mortgage crisis.

And this is not the only area of lending where volume has declined sharply.

The issuance of non-mortgage asset-backed securities is down by well more than half. And in the last three years, the volume of loans for the construction and development of real estate, or C&D loans, held by FDIC-insured institutions also has fallen by half. Net charge-offs of C&D loans during this period now exceed 10 percent of the loans that were on the books at year-end 2007.

There are some who continue to point to over-zealous regulators as the reason for rising charge-offs and declining balances in C&D portfolios. But the truth is that small and mid-sized institutions held record-high concentrations of these loans when U.S. real estate markets began their historic slide in 2006 and 2007. Regulators have done what they can in the wake of the crisis to facilitate loan workouts that help borrowers and banks while conforming to accepted accounting principles.

But we cannot make the problem go away overnight.

The Industry Needs Regulation to Prevent Excesses

With the benefit of hindsight, I think we all can agree that the time for action would have been before the crisis – when rapid growth in subprime and nontraditional mortgage loans was undermining the foundations of our housing markets, and poorly-managed concentrations in commercial real estate and construction lending were making many small and mid-sized institutions highly vulnerable to a real estate downturn.

As you will recall, regulators did propose and issue guidance on managing commercial real estate concentrations and on nontraditional mortgage lending in 2006, and then extended the mortgage guidance to cover subprime hybrid loans in early 2007. In retrospect, it could have been very helpful if well-run institutions had supported these proposals.

But a review of comment letters sent to regulators by industry trade associations before the crisis shows a consistent pattern of opposition. With regard to commercial real estate concentrations, comments from the various trade associations asserted that:

new guidance was not needed and would only increase regulatory burden,


industry practices had vastly improved since the last real estate downturn, and
high levels of commercial real estate lending were necessary in order for small and midsized institutions to effectively compete against larger institutions.


When we issued proposed guidance on non-traditional mortgages, industry comments found the guidance too proscriptive, saying that it “overstate[d] the risk of these mortgage products,” and that it would stifle innovation and restrict access to credit. Later, when we proposed to extend these guidelines to hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages, which at that time made up about 85 percent of all subprime loans, we received a letter co-signed by nine industry trade associations expressing “strong concerns” and saying that “imposing new underwriting requirements risks denying many borrowers the opportunity for homeownership or needed credit options.”

For our part, I think it is clear in hindsight that while our guidance was a step in the right direction, in the end it was too little, too late. To be sure, most—but not all – of the high risk mortgage lending was originated outside of insured banking institutions. But many large banks funded non-bank originators without appropriate oversight or controls.

And CRE lending did not cause the crisis, though poor management of CRE concentrations made far too many institutions vulnerable to the housing market correction when it finally turned. I think we all missed some opportunities before the crisis to help protect well-run institutions from the high-fliers – both within and outside the banking industry – whose risky lending practices were paving the way for the real estate crisis.

This is where I think the regulators and the industry should stand on common ground, in our determination to prevent a race to the bottom in lending practices and portfolio structures. This will protect the Deposit Insurance Fund and well-managed banks from higher assessment rates in the midst of some future industry downturn. And I do see some recent signs of common purpose in the reforming bank regulation.

In comment letters we received earlier this year, the ABA, for example, has expressed its support for the implementation of the Orderly Liquidation Authority and other measures under Dodd-Frank that will help to restore competitive balance to the industry by ending the doctrine of Too Big To Fail. But when I hear some of the public statements of industry leaders about how stronger capital requirements or risk retention in securitization will stifle lending and douse the recovery, I do worry about the depth of that commitment.

I think there is great pressure to restore earnings to pre-crisis levels.

As we saw in the years leading up to the crisis, there is always the temptation to try to squeeze out a few more basis points in earnings now by watering down certain regulatory provisions that are designed to preserve the long-term stability of our financial system and the deposit insurance fund.

I’ll give one example.

Comments received earlier this year on our proposed change in the assessment base under Dodd-Frank said, in part, “it is best to err on the side of collecting less, not more, from the industry.” This comment was received at a time when the reported balance of the Deposit Insurance Fund was negative 8 billion dollars.

We need to get past rhetoric that implies that, when it comes to financial services, the best regulation is always less regulation.

We need to stand together on the principle that prudential standards are essential to protect the competitive position of responsible players from the excesses of the high-fliers.

And I would very much like to hear from the industry a constructive regulatory agenda that would use the provisions of Dodd-Frank to fix the problems that led to the crisis and help to protect consumers and preserve financial stability in the years ahead.

Public Perceptions of Banks in the Wake of the Crisis

This is not just my vision of how the regulators and the industry need to work together. My reading of recent polling data on how the public views banks also speaks to the need for a different approach from your industry. In April 2010, a Pew Research poll found that just 22 percent of respondents rated banks and other financial institutions as having “a positive effect on the way things are going in this country.”

This was lower than the ratings they gave to Congress, the federal government, big business, labor unions, and the entertainment industry. Even though Americans remain skeptical about government control over the economy, an April 2010 poll conducted by Pew Research found that some 61 percent of respondents supported more financial regulation, virtually unchanged from the spring of 2009.

If you narrow the focus of the questions just to Wall Street firms, the results are even more striking. In a Harris poll conducted in early 2010, some 82 percent of respondents agreed that “recent events have shown that Wall Street should be subject to tougher regulations.” Despite perennial concerns about the government’s role in the economy, only 25 percent of investors polled by Gallup earlier this month agreed that “new financial regulations” were doing a lot to hurt the investment climate.

Nearly three times as many felt that the federal budget deficit and high unemployment were major sources of concern. What really seems to stick in the craw of the public is the extraordinary assistance that was provided to financial companies while millions of Americans were losing their jobs and their homes.

A July 2010 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and the National Journal shows that some 74 percent of respondents believed that government economic policies since 2008 had helped large banks and financial institutions “a great deal” or “a fair amount.” Only 27 percent thought these policies had helped the middle class, and only 23 percent felt they had helped small business. A Rasmussen poll published earlier this year shows that fully 50 percent of Americans believe the federal government is more concerned with making Wall Street firms profitable than with making sure the U.S. financial system works well for all Americans.



Manage Your Reputational Risk

Bank regulators are never going to be popular or glamorous in the eyes of the public. But the banking industry seems to have an even bigger image problem in the wake of the financial crisis.

What is important for you to recognize is that this type of reputation risk will eventually have implications for your bottom line and the confidence of your investors and customers. In this light, the biggest risk to the long-term success of the banking industry is not today’s difficult economic environment. That will improve over time.

And it is not the introduction of new regulatory rules that will curb the excesses that led to the financial crisis. The vast majority of well-run institutions will benefit from these changes. Instead, the biggest long-term risk to the success of the banking industry would be its failure to support the reforms needed to ensure long-term stability in our financial markets and our economy.

The American people have suffered enormous economic losses as a result of the financial crisis. In the years ahead, they will be asked to make more sacrifices to balance government budgets, repair public infrastructure, and rebuild our economic competitiveness. As this historical era unfolds, public opinion as to the role played by the banking industry seems unlikely to be neutral.

It is far more likely that banks will come to be viewed either as a group that supported the restoration of free enterprise and public responsibility in the American economy, or as a group that mainly looked out for its own short-term interests and resisted reforms that could have restored a sense of confidence and fairness in our financial markets.

Conclusion

Every one of your branches prominently displays the FDIC seal. It is a symbol of public confidence that assures the public that their money is safe if your institution should fail. But that seal also carries with it the expectation of your customers that they will be treated fairly and protected from unsuitable loan products and hidden service charges.

That public trust is sacred, and it is the very foundation of the long-term success of your industry.

If bankers and regulators are to uphold that trust, we must demonstrate the ability to work together and engage in long-term thinking that will protect consumers, preserve financial stability, and lay the foundation for a stronger U.S. economy in the years ahead.

Thank you."

FDIC PROPOSES NEW RULE TO RECOUP LOSSES FROM EXECUTIVES

The following is an outline obtained from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation web site regarding proposed new rules to reform Wall Street:


“The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to further clarify application of the orderly liquidation authority contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (OLA). The NPR builds on the interim rule approved by the FDIC on January 18, 2011, which clarified certain discrete issues under the OLA. The NPR approved today establishes a comprehensive framework for the priority payment of creditors and for the procedures for filing a claim with the receiver and, if dissatisfied, pursuing the claim in court. The NPR also clarifies additional issues important to the implementation of the OLA, including how compensation will be recouped from senior executives and directors who are substantially responsible for the failure of the firm. The NPR, along with the interim final rule, is intended to provide clarity and certainty about how key components of OLA will be implemented and to ensure that the liquidation process under Title II reflects the Dodd-Frank Act's mandate of transparency in the liquidation of covered financial companies.
"Today's action is another significant step toward leveling the competitive playing field and enforcing market discipline on all financial institutions, no matter their size. Under Dodd-Frank, the shareholders and creditors will bear the cost of any failure, not taxpayers," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair. "This NPR provides clarity to the process by letting creditors know clearly how they can file a claim and how they will be paid for their claims. This is an important step in providing certainty for the market in this new process."
In addition to the priority of claims and the procedures for filing and pursuing claims, the NPR defines the ability of the receiver to recoup compensation from persons who are substantially responsible for the financial condition of the company under Section 210(s) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Before seeking to recoup compensation, the receiver will consider whether the senior executive performed his or her responsibilities with the requisite degree of skill and care, and whether the individual caused a loss that materially contributed to the failure of the financial company. However, for the most senior executives, including those performing the duties of CEO, COO, CFO, as well as the Chairman of the Board, there will be a presumption that they are substantially responsible and thus subject to recoupment of up to two years of compensation. An exception is created for executives recently hired by the financial company specifically for improving its condition.
The NPR also ensures that the preferential and fraudulent transfer provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are implemented consistently with the corresponding provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed rule conforms to the interpretation provided by the FDIC General Counsel in December 2010.
Finally, the NPR clarifies the meaning of "financial company" under OLA. Under the proposal, a financial company will be defined as "predominantly engaged" in financial activates if their organization derived at least 85 percent of its total consolidated revenue from financial activities over the two most recent fiscal years. This rule will enhance certainty about which financial companies could be subject to resolution under OLA.
The proposed rule will be out for comment 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.”

The way the above reads seems to indicate that a receiver managing a failed financial institution can attempt to get at least some money back from certain executives and corporate directors if they do not act as they should in their capacity as having a major input as to how a financial institution is managed. It also indicates that a financial institution is an entity that gets 85% of its revenue from financial activities. These clarifications to the Dodd-Frank act might help spare the government a great deal of money which is often needed to shore up failing financial institutions.

SEC CHARGES INDYMAC EXECUTIVES WITH FRAUD

The SEC occasionally brings charges against bank executives. The following excerpt from the SEC web site alleges that executives at IndyMac Bancorp lied to their investors:

“Washington, D.C., Feb. 11, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former senior executives at IndyMac Bancorp with securities fraud for misleading investors about the mortgage lender’s deteriorating financial condition.
The SEC alleges that former CEO Michael W. Perry and former CFOs A. Scott Keys and S. Blair Abernathy participated in the filing of false and misleading disclosures about the financial stability of IndyMac and its main subsidiary, IndyMac Bank F.S.B. The three executives regularly received internal reports about IndyMac’s deteriorating capital and liquidity positions in 2007 and 2008, but failed to ensure adequate disclosure of that information to investors as IndyMac sold millions of dollars in new stock.

IndyMac Bank was a federally-chartered thrift institution regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and headquartered in Pasadena, Calif. The OTS closed the bank on July 11, 2008, and placed it under Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) receivership. IndyMac filed for bankruptcy protection later that month.
“These corporate executives made false and misleading disclosures about IndyMac at a time when the company’s financial condition was rapidly deteriorating. Truthful and accurate disclosure to investors is particularly critical during a time of crisis, and the federal securities laws do not become optional when the news is negative,” said Lorin L. Reisner, Deputy Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.
According to the SEC’s complaints filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Perry and Keys defrauded new and existing IndyMac shareholders by making false and misleading statements about IndyMac’s financial condition in its 2007 annual report and in offering materials for the company’s sale of $100 million in new stock to investors. In early February 2008, IndyMac projected that it would return to profitability and continue to pay preferred dividends in 2008 without having to raise new capital. In late February 2008, Perry and Keys knew that contrary to the rosy projections released just two weeks earlier, IndyMac had begun raising new capital to protect IndyMac’s capital and liquidity positions. Specifically, Perry and Keys regularly received information that IndyMac’s financial condition was rapidly deteriorating and authorized new stock sales as a result. Yet they fraudulently failed to fully disclose IndyMac’s precarious financial condition in the 2007 annual report and the offering documents for the new stock sales.
The SEC further alleges that Perry knew that rating downgrades in April 2008 on bonds held by IndyMac Bank had exacerbated its capital and liquidity positions to the extent that IndyMac had no choice but to suspend future preferred dividend payments by no later than May 2, 2008. This material information was not disclosed in IndyMac’s ongoing stock offerings. Perry also failed to disclose in various SEC filings or a May 2008 earnings conference call that IndyMac would not have been “well-capitalized” at the end of its first quarter without departing from its traditional method for risk-weighting subprime assets and backdating an $18 million capital contribution.
According to the SEC’s complaint, Abernathy replaced Keys as IndyMac’s CFO in April 2008. He similarly made false and misleading statements in the offering documents used in selling new IndyMac stock to investors despite regularly receiving internal reports about IndyMac’s deteriorating capital and liquidity positions.
The SEC also alleges that in summer 2007 while serving as IndyMac’s executive vice president in charge of specialty lending, Abernathy made false and misleading statements about the quality of the loans in six IndyMac offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) totaling $2.5 billion. Abernathy received internal reports each month revealing that 12 to 18 percent of IndyMac’s loans contained misrepresentations regarding important loan and borrower characteristics. However, the RMBS offering documents stated that nothing had come to IndyMac’s attention that any loan included in the offering contained a misrepresentation. The SEC alleges that Abernathy failed to ensure that the quality of IndyMac’s loans was accurately disclosed and failed to disclose that information had come to IndyMac’s attention about loans containing misrepresentations.
Abernathy agreed to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He consented to the entry of an order that permanently restrains and enjoins him from violating Section 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and requires him to pay a $100,000 penalty, $25,000 in disgorgement, and prejudgment interest of $1,592.26. Abernathy also consented to the issuance of an administrative order pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the SEC’s Rules of Practice, suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant. He has the right to apply for reinstatement after two years.
The SEC’s complaint charges Perry and Keys with knowingly violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting IndyMac’s violations of its periodic reporting requirements under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder. Perry also is charged with aiding and abetting IndyMac’s reporting violations under Exchange Act Rules 13a-11 and 13a-13. The SEC’s complaint against Perry and Keys seeks permanent injunctive relief, an officer and director bar, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and a financial penalty.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC in this investigation.”

An executive lying to stockholders is very common in the United States. Seldom are any real penalties given or even charges brought against executives who lie. In fact lying seems to be a prerequisite for the post of CEO at most U.S. corporations that I look at as an investor. Perhaps stockholders believe they need a devious monster to run their company. The problem with devious people is that they tend to steal from everyone. A ruthless person when it comes to competitors is also a ruthless person when it comes to stockholders. To paraphrase Shakespeare a thief by any other name is still a thief.

SEC GOES AFTER UBS FINACIAL ADVISER

The problem with modern American capitalism is that stealing is a good business practice. Proponents of modern capitalism say that people act in their own self interests and therefore everyone you do business with is a thief and everyone should realize that they will be ripped-off every time they do any kind of business. Organizing societies around stealing will result in the long run in very bad results namely, murderous revolutions like the one led by Robes Pierre. The following is a case in which the SEC alleges that a man lived beyond his means by stealing from his clients. The following is an excerpt from the case.

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former financial adviser at UBS Financial Services LLC with misappropriating $3.3 million in a scheme that included bilking investors in a private investment fund he established.
The SEC alleges that Steven T. Kobayashi, who worked in UBS’s Walnut Creek, Calif., office, created a pooled investment fund to invest in life insurance policies. But he wound up stealing much of the money to support his extravagant lifestyle. Kobayashi concealed his fraud by liquidating his customers’ securities and funneling the money back to the fund and its investors.

In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California today filed criminal charges against Kobayashi arising from some of the same alleged misconduct.
“Investors count on their brokers to safeguard their investments,” said Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office. “It’s difficult to imagine a more flagrant abuse of that trust than the manner in which Kobayashi pocketed his customers’ money and used it to feed his own habits.”
According to the SEC complaint filed today in federal district court in Oakland, Kobayashi established Life Settlement Partners LLC (LSP), a fund that invested in life settlement policies. He raised several million dollars from his UBS customers for the fund. Beginning in early 2006, Kobayashi used LSP’s bank accounts as his personal piggy bank, spending at least $1.4 million in investor funds on expensive cars, prostitutes, and large gambling debts.

The SEC alleges that in an attempt to repay LSP and its investors before they discovered his theft, Kobayashi induced several of his other UBS customers to liquidate securities in their UBS accounts and transfer the proceeds of those sales to entities that he controlled. In this manner, he stole an additional $1.9 million from these investors.
Kobayashi, who lives in Livermore, Calif., agreed to settle the SEC’s charges against him without admitting or denying the allegations. He agreed to a permanent injunction from further violations of the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws, and consented to the institution of public administrative proceedings against him in which he will be permanently barred from associating with entities in the securities industry. The amount of ill-gotten gains and monetary penalties that Kobayashi will be required to pay will be determined by the court at a later date.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service.”

Perhaps the modern capitalist state will one day be defined as an epitaph of evil. Real capitalism comes from the heart. It comes from the minds of people who want to better the lives of their fellow human beings. It has nothing to do with just cheating people as the vast number of current capitalist believe. Beat and cheat is the mantra of most capitalists today.

SEC ALLEGES FIRM PAID $2.5 MILLION IN BRIBES TO CHINESE OFFICIALS

The following case is one which involves the alleged bribing of officials in China by a U. S. based manufacturer. It is unfortunate that on occasion in some nations bribery takes place. The following excerpt is from the SEC web page:

“ Washington, D.C., Jan. 31, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged energy-related products manufacturer Maxwell Technologies Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by repeatedly paying bribes to government officials in China to obtain business from several Chinese state-owned entities.

The SEC alleges that a Maxwell subsidiary paid more than $2.5 million in bribes to Chinese officials through a third-party sales agent from 2002 to May 2009. As a result, the subsidiary was awarded contracts that generated more than $15 million in revenues and $5.6 million in profits for Maxwell. These sales and profits helped Maxwell offset losses that it incurred to develop new products now expected to become Maxwell's future source of revenue growth.
Maxwell — a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego — has agreed to pay more than $6.3 million to settle the SEC's charges. In a related criminal proceeding, Maxwell has reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and agreed to pay an $8 million penalty.
"Maxwell's bribery allowed the company to obtain revenue and better financially position itself until new products were commercially developed and sold," said Cheryl J. Scarboro, Chief of the SEC's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. "This enforcement action shows that corruption can constitute disclosure violations as well as violations of other securities laws."
According to the SEC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Maxwell's wholly-owned Swiss subsidiary Maxwell Technologies SA paid the bribes to officials at several Chinese state-owned entities. The bribes were classified in invoices as either "Extra Amount" or "Special Arrangement" fees, and were made to improperly influence decisions by foreign officials to assist Maxwell in obtaining and retaining sales contracts for high voltage capacitors produced by Maxwell SA.
The SEC's complaint alleges that the illicit payments were made with the knowledge and tacit approval of certain former Maxwell officials. For example, former management at Maxwell knew of the bribery scheme in late 2002 when an employee indicated in an e-mail that a payment made in connection with a sale in China appeared to be "a kick-back, pay-off, bribe, whatever you want to call it, . . . . in violation of US trade laws." A U.S.-based Maxwell executive replied that "this is a well know[n] issue" and he warned "[n]o more e-mails please."
The SEC alleges that Maxwell failed to devise and maintain an effective system of internal controls and improperly recorded the bribes on its books. The illicit sales and profits from the bribery scheme helped Maxwell offset losses that it incurred to develop its new products. Maxwell made corrections in its Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Maxwell consented to the entry of a final judgment that permanently enjoins the company from future violations of Sections 30A, 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, orders the company to pay $5,654,576 in disgorgement and $696,314 in prejudgment interest under a payment plan. The company also is required to comply with certain undertakings regarding its FCPA compliance program. Maxwell cooperated in the investigation.
Tracy L. Price and James Valentino of the SEC Enforcement Division's FCPA Unit conducted the investigation. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division-Fraud Section in its investigation, which is continuing.”

Clearly one way to get ahead of your competition is to pay bribes. It is a nasty situation when corporations pay bribes to foreign officials. However, it is even a nastier situation when corporations pay bribes to shameless U.S. lawmakers and judges in the form of campaign contributions and jobs for their relatives. It seems almost foolish to enforce laws overseas when the men who make and sit in judgment on such laws in the U.S. are perhaps some the most corrupt officials in the world.

SEC FILES CHARGES AGAINST FORMER GOLDMAN SACHS BOARD MEMBER

Insider information that comes from a low level insider might be hard to legitimize as a case worth pursuing if the insider has no financial gain from leaking information. However, when a high level executive or member of the board of directors of a major financial institution leaks the information to someone else in order to profit personally then, the case for insider trading can be easily made. The following is an excerpt from the SEC web site and it outlines a very compelling set of allegations against a former Goldman Sachs board member:

“Washington, D.C., March 1, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced insider trading charges against a Westport, Conn.-based business consultant who has served on the boards of directors at Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble for illegally tipping Galleon Management founder and hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam with inside information about the quarterly earnings at both firms as well as an impending $5 billion investment by Berkshire Hathaway in Goldman.
The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Rajat K. Gupta, a friend and business associate of Rajaratnam, provided him with confidential information learned during board calls and in other aspects of his duties on the Goldman and P&G boards. Rajaratnam used the inside information to trade on behalf of some of Galleon’s hedge funds, or shared the information with others at his firm who then traded on it ahead of public announcements by the firms. The insider trading by Rajaratnam and others generated more than $18 million in illicit profits and loss avoidance. Gupta was at the time a direct or indirect investor in at least some of these Galleon hedge funds, and had other potentially lucrative business interests with Rajaratnam.

The SEC has previously charged Rajaratnam and others in the widespread insider trading scheme involving the Galleon hedge funds.
“Gupta was honored with the highest trust of leading public companies, and he betrayed that trust by disclosing their most sensitive and valuable secrets,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Directors who violate the sanctity of board room confidences for private gain will be held to account for their illegal actions.”
In the order that institutes administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Gupta, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that, while a member of Goldman’s Board of Directors, Gupta tipped Rajaratnam about Berkshire Hathaway’s $5 billion investment in Goldman and Goldman’s upcoming public equity offering before that information was publicly announced on Sept. 23, 2008. Gupta called Rajaratnam immediately after a special telephonic meeting at which Goldman’s Board considered and approved Berkshire’s investment in Goldman Sachs and the public equity offering. Within a minute after the Gupta-Rajaratnam call and just minutes before the close of the markets, Rajaratnam arranged for Galleon funds to purchase more than 175,000 Goldman shares. Rajaratnam later informed another participant in the scheme that he received the tip on which he traded only minutes before the market close. Rajaratnam caused the Galleon funds to liquidate their Goldman holdings the following day after the information became public, making illicit profits of more than $900,000.
The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Gupta also illegally disclosed to Rajaratnam inside information about Goldman Sachs’s positive financial results for the second quarter of 2008. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein called Gupta and various other Goldman outside directors on June 10, when the company’s financial performance was significantly better than analysts’ consensus estimates. Blankfein knew the earnings numbers and discussed them with Gupta during the call. Between that night and the following morning, there was a flurry of calls between Gupta and Rajaratnam. Shortly after the last of these calls and within minutes after the markets opened on June 11, Rajaratnam caused certain Galleon funds to purchase more than 5,500 out-of-the-money Goldman call options and more than 350,000 Goldman shares. Rajaratnam liquidated these positions on or around June 17, when Goldman made its quarterly earnings announcement. These transactions generated illicit profits of more than $13.6 million for the Galleon funds.
The Division of Enforcement further alleges that Gupta tipped Rajaratnam with confidential information that he learned during a board posting call about Goldman’s impending negative financial results for the fourth quarter of 2008. The call ended after the close of the market on October 23, with senior executives informing the board of the company’s financial situation. Mere seconds after the board call, Gupta called Rajaratnam, who then arranged for certain Galleon funds to begin selling their Goldman holdings shortly after the financial markets opened the following day until the funds finished selling off their holdings, which had consisted of more than 120,000 shares. In discussing trading and market information that day with another participant in the insider trading scheme, Rajaratnam explained that while Wall Street expected Goldman Sachs to earn $2.50 per share, he had heard the prior day from a Goldman Sachs board member that the company was actually going to lose $2 per share. As a result of Rajaratnam’s trades based on the inside information that Gupta provided, the Galleon funds avoided losses of more than $3 million.
Gupta served as a Goldman board member from November 2006 to May 2010, and has been serving on Procter & Gamble's board since 2007.
As it pertains to insider trades by the Galleon funds in the securities of Procter & Gamble, the Division of Enforcement alleges that Gupta illegally disclosed to Rajaratnam inside information about the company financial results for the quarter ending December 2008. Gupta participated in a telephonic meeting of P&G’s Audit Committee at 9 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2009, to discuss the planned release of P&G’s quarterly earnings the next day. A draft of the earnings release, which had been mailed to Gupta and the other committee members two days before the meeting, indicated that P&G’s expected organic sales would be less than previously publicly predicted. Gupta called Rajaratnam in the early afternoon on January 29, and Rajaratnam shortly afterward advised another participant in the insider trading conspiracy that he had learned from a contact on P&G’s board that the company’s organic sales growth would be lower than expected. Galleon funds then sold short approximately 180,000 P&G shares, making illicit profits of more than $570,000.
The Division of Enforcement alleges that by engaging in the misconduct described in the SEC’s order, Gupta willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The administrative proceedings will determine what relief, if any, is in the public interest against Gupta, including disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest, financial penalties, an officer or director bar, and other remedial relief.”

It is good to see the SEC investigating a board member at a major financial institution. However, it is hopeful that the SEC will pursue investigations of others at Goldman and other large institutions for financial malfeasance. It is best to be suspicious whenever a person of some importance is a target of an investigation. Sometimes wolves will sacrifice a pup in order to escape a bear.